With respect to newly founded clubs, the USG should also be sure to task individual representatives to observe the progress of the new group and comment on suggestions for potential improvement.
While I do not necessarily agree with President Tilghman’s statement that “anonymous debate is no debate at all,” I do believe that a debate, regardless of whether or not the participants are revealed or anonymous, should remain relevant so that the dialogue will not turn hateful. There’s a difference between attacking an issue and attacking a person — here’s where I believe Chen has made an error.
Like getting struck by lightning, mauled by a bear or biting into an oatmeal raisin cookie when you’re expecting chocolate chip, sexiling usually only exists dimly in the back of one’s mind.
I am more than willing — I am eager, I am hungry to sacrifice two weeks of summer vacation for a normal, stress-free winter break. Working through academics at Princeton frequently feels like wrestling with an enormous, invincible, many-headed monster. Winter break should be a respite, not the apex of the battle.
This week has been the first time at Princeton I’ve been paralyzed by stress. Not to say that I’ve never been overwhelmed here, but when I’ve been faced with encyclopedias of writing, mountains of reading or textbooks of problem sets before, my type-A self has kicked into overdrive making calendars and to-do lists, breaking large problems into tackleable chunks.
Most recently, the critique that piqued my interest out of the constant slew of condescension is the article “How to Live Without Irony.” The author uses hipsters to illustrate an epidemic of irony among today’s youth: the use of sarcasm and disingenuousness to shirk personal responsibility. It surprised me to learn the writer of a piece with such a pessimistic thesis about America’s young adults, Christy Wampole, is a Princeton professor. Her perspective is only representative of a narrow sample of contemporary culture and is therefore not indicative of the country as a whole, and certainly not of Princeton.
Anonymity is one of those words I?ve always had a hard time pronouncing ? like Pixar?s Nemo describing an ?anemone.? And yet, this year I?ve had a lot of chances to practice this tricky word.
The exclusion of race in admissions would make it an unfair process due to the psychological concept of stereotype threat.
The issue of identity — who we are, why we’re here, what we’re living for — is crucial but often overlooked. The day-to-day grind, at Princeton especially, can force us to spend most of our time focusing on the next urgent thing to get done. However, the overarching purpose we each choose to live out ultimately flows into all other aspects of our lives and, as such, deserves serious reflection.
Nathan Mathabane’s column last week raised a question that I think many of us have struggled with for some time: What are we doing here? I mean specifically here, at Princeton. To what end goal do we put in all this work?
A well-informed friend tells me that Princeton may have decided to join the Yellow Ribbon Program after all. I very much hope this is true.
Governor Daniels, we believe that policies limiting provider choice without consideration of cost and quality are wasteful; and we believe that the rights of women to access basic health care services are worth your veto.
The Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case has increased the scrutiny of the college admissions process. Currently, Princeton, like the University of Texas, has a race-based affirmative action policy, giving extra weight to race in the admissions decision. Though factors like geography and socioeconomic class are also weighed, given the extensive statistics available on the student body’s racial breakdown and the uneven progress toward racial rather than socioeconomic diversity, no factors are weighed as strongly as race. Because there is academic value in a diverse student body, we urge the University to attach more value to overcoming socioeconomic rather than racial barriers in admissions decisions.
Thanks to the horror stories that circulate, compliance with the honor system is almost universal, but for the wrong reasons. I don’t think I’m incorrect in saying the majority of us don’t cheat, but this isn’t because we’re doing what we think is right. It’s because we’re afraid of getting caught, and, above all, because we’re afraid of getting punished.
The reality that there is a decent amount of data about our lives online means people are now concerned with “maintaining” their online identity. Identifying how you want to appear to others, and correcting where necessary to prevent aberrations from this ideal. You may, for example, have been told to cultivate a personal brand. To find a way to market yourself, establish your worth. I’d rather not, thank you very much. Because I am not a brand, I am a person.
According to Brooks, a major symptom of the hyper-industrious, achievement-seeking “organization kid” native to university environments such as ours is a distinct lack of “moral articulateness.” This is a serious problem in the University and is one that we must address as students ourselves.
